better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future)NEW (smaller) Shuttle

a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1
design:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html

On Mar 23, 5:13�am, gaetanomarano wrote:
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1
design:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html

sadly nasa must have decided the optimum pork for everyone is
ares..........

the agency in whle cares about nothing else

On Mar 23, 6:13 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1
design:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html

You purpose

a worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and
lastly non viable vehicle.

Just stop polluting the internet with your garbage

wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 6:13 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1
design:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html

You purpose

a worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and
lastly non viable vehicle.

None of the ideas (Ares 1 or this guy's ideas) are better than the Delta IV
Heavy which is already in production; has been launched and is proven
reliable. Ares 1 (NASA version) will be substatially more expensive than
the Delta IV Heavy. There's really no reason at all to use the Ares 1.

gaetanomarano wrote:
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1
design:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html

Congratulations, you've actually come up with a worse idea than Ares.

You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces
together to form a working system. In fact, almost every existing
component in your system would require extensive redesign, in many cases
to the point of being a complete "do over".

Just a few points from your proposed SLV:

1.) There's no way in hell you're going to stack a large vehicle on top
of a shuttle external tank without significant reenforcement, it simply
was not designed to carry large loads up on the nose. In fact, you
would almost certainly have to completely re-design the external tank.

2.) Likewise, you are not going to attach a set of SSMEs to the bottom
of a shuttle ET. It likewise was not designed to have all the force
applied at that one locate. Again, complete re-design of ET.

3.) You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. Didn't read
enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused
many, many times and is therefore quite expensive for the specific
impulse/lift capability. SSMEs were designed to be reused, but were not
designed to be dunked in the ocean between uses. You would need to show
a convincing plan to get that SSME cluster back to the ground without
significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in
the ocean). I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown.

4.) There seems to be a lot of hand waving on everything forward of the
shuttle ET. Assuming that part is less that 110~125 tons it's still
only in LEO. All of that is new work.

I would be tempted to say you've managed to preserve all of the
shuttle's worse attributes while offering little improvement but that
would be an overstatement. By getting rid of the tandem shuttle/ET
stacking you have removed the worse flaw of the shuttle system. Good
for you. However, while removing the worse flaw in the shuttle system
you have managed to retain almost all of the most expensive components
that have made the shuttle system so cost prohibitive to fly. In fact,
I don't see any way your proposed system flys for *less* than the
current cost to launch a shuttle. In fact, given that almost everything
forward of the ET ends up either burning up in the atmosphere or in the
ocean it will certainly cost *more* per launch than the current shuttle
(and that's assuming that you *are* reusing the SSMEs, if not it will
cost *much* more per launch).

You have a good motive in wanting to use existing hardware as much as
possible, however IMHO I think you have picked the wrong (i.e. most
expensive) system to start from. I think starting from something like a
Delta IV and man-rating the components would give you a much cheaper to
launch system much quicker than either your idea or the Ares concept.

On 23 Mar, 17:55, wrote:

a *worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and
lastly non viable vehicle.

just bad words... not only MY design, but, ALL rockets with the SRB-4
(instead of the SRB-5) are (at least) cheaper and faster to develop
and build

.

On 23 Mar, 18:28, "Alan Erskine" wrote:

None of the ideas (Ares 1 or this guy's ideas) are better than the Delta IV
Heavy which is already in production; has been launched and is proven
reliable. *Ares 1 (NASA version) will be substatially more expensive than
the Delta IV Heavy. *There's really no reason at all to use the Ares 1.

the Delta IV Heavy already exists and costs less than develop any kind
of Ares-1 but has flown just two times (IIRC) is not man-rated and
can't lift the (8 mT propellents) lunar Orion but only the (2/4 mT
propellents) orbital Orion (that, however, could be better than
nothing...

.

On 23 Mar, 18:52, Leopold Stotch wrote:
You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces
together to form a working system. *In fact, almost every existing
component in your system would require extensive redesign, in many cases
to the point of being a complete "do over".

yes, it needs some design and has costs, but LESS than the SRB-5
Ares-1


There's no way in hell you're going to stack a large vehicle on top
of a shuttle external tank without significant reenforcement

that's true (and I've already said that at the end of my FAST-SLV
article)


Likewise, you are not going to attach a set of SSMEs to the bottom
of a shuttle ET. It likewise was not designed to have all the force
applied at that one locate. *Again, complete re-design of ET.

true, it's only a concept, not a ready-to-fly rocket, however, the ET
changes (urely) need LESS time and mone than develop TWO brand new
rockets


You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. *Didn't read
enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused
many, many times and is therefore quite expensive for the specific
impulse/lift capability. *SSMEs were designed to be reused, but were not
designed to be dunked in the ocean between uses. *You would need to show
a convincing plan to get that SSME cluster back to the ground without
significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in
the ocean). *I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown.

I've NOT said in the article (nor elsewhere) that the SSMEs must be
recovered and reused (despite the rocket drawing's "engines' basket"
seems suggest that)


There seems to be a lot of hand waving on everything forward of the
shuttle ET. *Assuming that part is less that 110~125 tons it's still
only in LEO. *All of that is new work.

true, it's the LEO payload, that's why I suggest to "resize" the moon
missions and its hardware for a crew of three (with one launch) OR use
two FAST-SLV per mission for a very "hardware richer" moon mission


I would be tempted to say you've managed to preserve all of the
shuttle's worse attributes while offering little improvement but that
would be an overstatement. *By getting rid of the tandem shuttle/ET
stacking you have removed the worse flaw of the shuttle system. *Good
for you. *However, while removing the worse flaw in the shuttle system
you have managed to retain almost all of the most expensive components
that have made the shuttle system so cost prohibitive to fly. *In fact,
I don't see any way your proposed system flys for *less* than the
current cost to launch a shuttle. *In fact, given that almost everything
forward of the ET ends up either burning up in the atmosphere or in the
ocean it will certainly cost *more* per launch than the current shuttle
(and that's assuming that you *are* reusing the SSMEs, if not it will
cost *much* more per launch).

not true, if you scrap the Shuttle from the system, do a 100%
expendable launcher and avoid to develop two new rockets, the time and
money saved will be in the order of DOZENS billion$$$ (that's, also,
why I've suggested to rearrange ONLY ready available space-hardware)


You have a good motive in wanting to use existing hardware as much as
possible, however IMHO I think you have picked the wrong (i.e. most
expensive) system to start from. *I think starting from something like a
Delta IV and man-rating the components would give you a much cheaper to
launch system much quicker than either your idea or the Ares concept.

smaller rockets like Delta, Atlas and Ariane can be used but they need
DEEP changes in the ESAS hardware and lunar missions' architecture...
these rockets can't be of much help with the planned missions'
architecture

.

how many really believe bushes moon mars mission will survive his term
in office? It was DOA from the get go, and had as much chance of
flying as the saturn 5 in the saturn center, cleaned and painted but
never going anywhere..........

bush will go down in history as the worst president ever, and ares
just one of a long list of failures

truly the delta heavy was a far better choice but lacked the
pork.......

if a manned system survives at all its its best chance.

gaetanomarano wrote:
On 23 Mar, 18:52, Leopold Stotch wrote:
You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. Didn't read
enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused
many, many times and is therefore quite expensive for the specific
impulse/lift capability. SSMEs were designed to be reused, but were not
designed to be dunked in the ocean between uses. You would need to show
a convincing plan to get that SSME cluster back to the ground without
significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in
the ocean). I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown.

I've NOT said in the article (nor elsewhere) that the SSMEs must be
recovered and reused (despite the rocket drawing's "engines' basket"
seems suggest that)


Then you've missed my point entirely. The SSME is a *very* expensive
engine. One of the major reasons that is it so expensive is that it is
meant to be reused multiple times. You are chunking away a lot of money
if you are using SSMEs as disposable engines. If you are going to do
that, better to use an engine that was designed to be a one time use
only engine.